A North Korean human rights issue which has captured much attention recently is the return of the
Laotian Nine: last month, nine North Korean defectors (all reportedly orphans) caught in Laos were detained by the Laotian government before being repatriated back to North Korea. The nine, with the aid of an activist/pastor, had navigated the
underground railroad out of North Korea through China and into Laos over the past two years in hopes of seeking asylum in South Korea. Laotian actions potentially
violated international law which prevents countries from repatriating refugees if their lives are endangered. Because of the media spotlight, there's some hope that the nine orphans, mostly children, will avoid being sent to the gulags, but there fate now is unknown.The case has received attention not only because of the number of children involved, but because Laos had been seen as a relative safe haven for defectors.
It's clear that Pyongyang has been cracking down on the number of defectors the past few years. There's
speculation that the North Koreans (and perhaps the Chinese) may have pressured the Laotian government this time to repatriate the nine young defectors. The Laotian (and North Korean) government claimed that the nine were "trafficked" out of North Korea by a Christian activist/pastor.
Here lies the moral and legal dilemma faced by third party countries like Laos or China and the importance of labels. In China, those who escape North Korea are labeled as "economic migrants" rather than refugees. As economic migrants, they are not protected under international law and therefore sent back to North Korea. In the Laotian nine case, Vientiane claimed the nine were "trafficked", an action which paradoxically makes the children victims of human rights abuse. Morally, we know it's wrong to send defectors back to North Korea if the chance of torture, hard labor, or death for defectors are high (which they are according to human rights
reports). But legally, what do you do if providing safe haven or aiding defectors violates the sovereignty of another country (in this case North Korea). To put this in perspective, if a U.S. citizen breaks the law and flees another country, the US would certainly not want other countries giving safe haven to defectors and insist they be repatriated back to the U.S. (i.e. draft dodgers during the Vietnam era, or more recently,
Edward Snowden). And yes, I'm aware the U.S. is no North Korea.
Of course, we tend to treat North Korea as a country which has given up its right to be judged as a sovereign state since North Korea repeatedly violates international law (or norms, natural law etc...) and apply domestic laws arbitrarily and unevenly (North Korea laws are interpreted and applied at the discretion of the regime. But here's a somewhat
alternative view). Most human rights advocates, including myself, are appalled at the decision to repatriate the nine defectors, mostly children. Yet from the perspective of Vientiane, Beijing, or Pyeongyang which also consider national interests, diplomatic relations, and economic costs and not just moral reputation and international codes of ethics, the decision is surely a complicated one. Activists and states which adhere closely to the UN conventions must continue to persuade - through instrumental means or moral suasion - why a blanket policy of repatriation is wrong (i.e. there must be a way to distinguish between refugees, economic migrants, and trafficked persons). They must also press countries which have some diplomatic purchase over North Korea (i.e. China) to push Pyeongyang to address issues which are at the root cause of defection: food shortages, abject poverty, and human rights abuses.
